Racism Down, Interracial Marriage Up
September 30, 2018
I was listening to a podcast, and one of my favorite political and cultural commentators, Jonah Goldberg, happened to mention rates of interracial marriage as one possible measure of levels of racism in America over the years. I was curious; so I looked them up.
According to the Pew Research Center, between 1980 and 2017, intermarriage rates roughly tripled:
Share of black Americans marrying someone of a different race or ethnicity in 1980 — 5%
In 2015 — 18%
Share of white Americans marrying someone of a different race or ethnicity in 1980 — 4%
In 2015 — 11%
This entry is part of a series of guest posts on the governor’s race. For the rest of the series, go to:
Taylor vs. DeWine: candidate comparison, by the issues (2018 Republican primary for Ohio governor)
On Marriage and Family, only Mary Taylor and Nathan Estruth have promised to veto HB 160, the sexual orientation/gender identity bill that puts parents and pastors and Christian ministries at risk to the homosexual agenda and lawsuits. Only Mary and Nathan have always stood for one man, one woman marriage, and only Mary and Nathan have publicly voiced their opposition to the taking of minors from parents, something recently done by a judge in Cincinnati. Mike DeWine publicly opposed the Ohio Marriage Amendment and has stated he will continue Governor Kasich’s executive order to declare protected class status based on sexual orientation — which Mary Taylor has said she will end on Day 1. Further, as Attorney General, Mike DeWine refused to stand with Christian business owners who are being persecuted for their belief in Christian marriage. DeWine refused to sign on to support the baker in the Masterpiece case at the U.S. Supreme Court and to defend the florist in the Arlene’s Flowers case in appealing to the Supreme Court, something that dozens of other state Attorney Generals did.
I’ve been reading Chesterton lately (What’s Wrong with the World). He was writing in a very different social context—in England, a hundred years ago—but a lot of it sounds surprisingly familiar. Some of the dynamics between men and women, for example, may be more universal (and to a more specific level of detail) than I had assumed.
‘Most people become “ready to get married” when they get married.’
December 31, 2015
Dennis Prager offers some incisive observations about our culture and growing up.
The same holds true for becoming a parent. Very few people are “ready” to become parents. They become ready . . . once they become parents. In fact, the same holds true for any difficult job. What new lawyer was “ready” to take on his or her first clients? What new teacher, policeman, firefighter is “ready”?
Divorce: A Firsthand Account
November 27, 2015
Kate Mulgrew speaks frankly about her divorce, and what it did to her children:
We were driving across the Mojave Desert toward Mammoth Mountain. Ian was in the front seat, next to me, and Alec was in the back. It was late afternoon. I could feel the sun withdrawing; so I accelerated, hoping to make it to the mountain before dark.
The energy in the car was high, lit by a strange blue flame.
“Why isn’t Dad with us?” Ian demanded. “When is he coming up?”
Kentucky County Clerk Jailed for Dissenting from New Marriage Orthodoxy
September 4, 2015
Really?
Really, guys? You’re going to start putting people in jail for disagreeing with you?
As both Fox News and the liberal Washington Post are reporting:
“Kentucky clerk ordered to jail for refusing to issue gay marriage license”
(WP headline)
U.S. District Judge David Bunning said he had no choice but to jail Kim Davis for contempt after she insisted that her “conscience will not allow” her to follow federal court rulings on gay marriage.
Even NPR Agrees: Maybe the Culture of Fornication and the Atomization of Society Aren’t Such a Good Thing
August 13, 2015
In a pair of stories this evening, NPR wonders whether some of the secular left’s remaking of society has been such a good deal for most of us, and starts to sound almost like the church, or Mark Steyn.
From “In Twitter Rant, Tinder Blasts ‘Vanity Fair’ Article On New York Dating Culture”:
Nancy Jo Sales’ article devoted five thousand words to the modern dating culture spawned by Tinder and other similar apps. It wasn’t a pretty picture.
Ed Morrissey makes a good point (“Religion: The new Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”) about the government’s new definition of marriage: As a country, we allowed Quakers and other religious objectors to opt out of military service, even in World War II. The protection extends to non-religious objectors as well. If the government doesn’t force people to act against their principles for national defense and saving the world from Nazis—the most “compelling interest” the government can have—why on earth should it force people to participate (whether by baking cakes, issuing the licenses, or otherwise) in same-sex marriages?
(Insert Joke about ‘Hybrid Vigor’ and Inbred Nazis Here)
July 10, 2015
Hot Air headline: “German thought leaders move to legalize incest”
The German national Ethics Council has taken a vote and is suggesting that it should be legal for brothers and sisters to marry. (From Metro UK)
Two contributors at The Volokh Conspiracy, both of whom support Obergefell’s redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, nevertheless argue that it was a poor decision that will have unintended consequences.
Ilya Somin: “A great decision on same-sex marriage – but based on dubious reasoning”
From our bishops’ statement on the Supreme Court ruling this week:
We call our people to a season of prayer for marriage and offer the accompanying Litany and Prayer to guide us.
Unanimously adopted by the College of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America.
June 26, 2015
More Responses to Obergefell vs. Hodges
June 28, 2015
The Anglican Church in North America responds at some length.
Scott Walker made a great statement in response to the Supreme Court decision.
Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ . . .
Another Day in the Life of a Tolerant Liberal
June 27, 2015
It was almost too perfect a reflection on the intolerance of the “tolerance” crowd when a blogger yesterday responded to my constitutional arguments by calling me an A’hole, saying that he does not “take kindly” to people disagreeing with him, and erasing the indication that my blog had linked to his so that none of his readers would have to be exposed to any differing views, either. (Surprisingly, if you block out everyone who doesn’t agree with you, you will find yourself surrounded by people who agree with you!)
At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has great further discussions of how today’s Supreme Court decision threatens conservatives’ and Christians’ freedom, and what Republicans in Congress are doing about it.
2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.
2014: Bake a cake or be destroyed.
2015: We won’t touch your church. Promise. Tee hee.
Re today’s Supreme Court decision, My Friday Blog is at pains to emphasize that the Civil War was about slavery.
The states themselves, in their official secession declarations explicitly said it was about slavery. Look it up.
Sandy Beach Writings (“(Marriage) Equality but at What Cost?”) emphasizes that she is in favor of today’s Supreme Court decision (“Let me be clear, I completely agree with the fact that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry”), but wonders, reasonably, about vertical separation of powers and federalism.
Re today’s Supreme Court decision, the blog Intellectual Prostitution (“Love Rules and So Does SCOTUS”) argues,
And Scalia’s dissent has only proven how asinine the arguments against marriage equality have always been.
…the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law…Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.
Quin Hillyer at NRO has the first thought on today’s U. S. Supreme Court decision redefining marriage.
There is absolutely no way for Justice Anthony Kennedy to square today’s decision with his ten pages of paeans to states’ authority over marriage in the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor. None. The damage done to the Constitution and the rule of law . . . incalculably high.
From what I hear (Professor John Eastman’s excellent summary of today’s oral arguments), the good guys did surprisingly well at the Supreme Court today, and right out of the gate, swing-vote Kennedy came out swinging (audio here):
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the Federal government’s historic deference to States when it comes to matters of domestic relations?
Men Are from Mars, Liberals Are from Venus
April 28, 2015
Via The Volokh Conspiracy: Wonkblog breathlessly reports on “The disturbing differences in what men want in their wives and their daughters”:
When asked what qualities they want in in a wife, American heterosexual men said they value “attractive” and “sweet” women, a national survey recently found. Only 34 percent, however, said they wanted a romantic partner who is “independent.”
Enjoyment and Contemplation 